Proof that God exists

[downbeatplumb]

[quote pid='1686569' dateline='1516033991']

Confirmation bias is the impetus for scientific inquiry.  Hang on, let me go find evidence to back that statement  So, as soon as we begin, we're off on the wrong foot.  But we muddle along.

[/quote]

So you have misunderstood the scientific principle which is the opposite of that. You see in science you have a thing called "falsifiability" So you come up with things that would disprove your theory and look for those.



"One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it."

[Agnosty]

I can, however, give you an example of something I don;t understand, but it would be more a convo between vulcan and I than you and I.  I don't understand the value of "challenging my positions" re atheism.  This can only mean one thing - legitimately considering fairies. 

That demonstrates a narrow thinking.  How do you know challenging atheism results in the consideration of fairies?  Are there not other concepts of god that you have not considered?  How can you be so sure?  How can you be sure about what you have never considered?  How can you be sure you've considered all possibilities?

Knowledge explicitly demands objectivity.  If you know it, you can show it.  If you can't show it, it's not objective..and therefore is not knowledge.  More properly, it is a belief.

Can you show atheism is true?  

"If you can't show it, it's not objective"  So then, if I can't show something is true, then I can't be objective?   Only when I know for sure, then I can be objective?  Seems opposite to me.

Fun with words:  The objective is to determine the existence of bigfoot.  To that end we have deployed objective investigators, in order to objectively determine whether or not this creature exists.  Three uses of the term, three distinct connotations in context.  All well and good.  If, however, we drift back and forth between these connotations in drawing inferences between them our conclusion will be fundamentally uninformative due to textbook equivocation.  Or, in other words...being bad at words.

That would be a failure on the part of the reader to properly ascertain what the author was trying to convey.  You cannot project your connotations onto an author and claim you're properly interpreting what is said.

---

So you have misunderstood the scientific principle which is the opposite of that. You see in science you have a thing called "falsifiability" So you come up with things that would disprove your theory and look for those.



"One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it."

That would be ideal, yes.  Realistic?  No.

---

See???  More ad homs.  Can't you post even one time without redirection of attention onto how stupid I am?  Don't you see how that removes credibility from your position?

Not really..but that actually -would- be an ad hom.  Imagining that "my position"..which, for reference..has been that natural and artifical selection exists.....as one example of things you take issue with..... loses credibility because I'm a huge meanie.

It has nothing to do with your being mean, but that you have nothing left but to insult.  Doesn't bother me if you call me names, but it should bother YOU because it means you've run the gambit of your intellect and have resorted to calling names.

Me calling you an idiot is just an insult, not an ad hom. 

 
Wrong.  Redirection from the argument to the person is the definition of ad hom.  It has nothing to do with insults.  You could compliment me and it would still be an ad hom.

You've confused me for a missionary.  I'm correcting you, not trying to win you over.

 
Then you're wasting your time correcting someone.  Anytime you commit an ad hom, you're wasting your time regardless of your goal.

Peer review is a much more viscious process than what you've been subjected to here.  If you tried this shit in peer review your ignorance would be briefly savaged and then you would be ignored as a crank and non-entity.  I honestly doubt that anyone would publish so much as a smidgeon of your opinions on biology or science.

More ad homs.

You're hopeless.

[vulcanlogician]

I really think that Agnosty is a skeptic in the ancient Greek sense. He doesn't believe in knowledge. It's kind of intriguing really, and I imagine that conspiracy of reason and he might hit it off.

[The Grand Nudger]

If he were a skeptic in the greek sense he'd probably have a better grasp of the term "ad hom", lol. 

---

You're hopeless.

I think my ironometer just broke.

[The Valkyrie]

The only "proofs" for the existence of a deity I've ever encountered are personal "experiences", appeals to authority, appeals to ignorance, claims the bible counts as proof, and the ever popular, "who are you to question god??!"

[The Grand Nudger]

That demonstrates a narrow thinking.  How do you know challenging atheism results in the consideration of fairies?

Because atheism is nothing but a comment on whether or not I believe in fairies.  

Are there not other concepts of god that you have not considered?  How can you be so sure?  How can you be sure about what you have never considered?  How can you be sure you've considered all possibilities?

"What if you don't know something?".  That's never not true, but until you make some specific proposition it's a vacuous objection.  

Can you show atheism is true?  

Sure can.

"If you can't show it, it's not objective"  So then, if I can't show something is true, then I can't be objective?

That's what it means for something to be objective.  If you tell me that you know that there's an imp hovering over your bedside table because you can see it...and you point to thin air...you believe that theres an imp.  This belief is neither objective, nor knowledge, and while it certainly may be true that you -see- an imp hovering over your bedside table, that's no indication that there actually is an imp hovering over your bedside table. That your claim is true.  

  Only when I know for sure, then I can be objective?  Seems opposite to me.

You're perfectly capable of being certain about something in the absence of any objective indication of it's truth, but what your personal certainty has to do with things that can be objectively shown to be true is a mystery.   

That would be a failure on the part of the reader to properly ascertain what the author was trying to convey.  You cannot project your connotations onto an author and claim you're properly interpreting what is said.

It's not actually my responsibility to correct your equivocations.  I do it out of the kindness of my big mean heart, so that you stop making a fool of yourself.  Take it or leave it.

[Amarok]

Are there not other concepts of god that you have not considered?  How can you be so sure?  How can you be sure about what you have never considered?  How can you be sure you've considered all possibilities?

Conceptions of gods that have not been presented are of no concern to me . And are ultimately as baseless as gods that have been presented to me .  

That demonstrates a narrow thinking.  How do you know challenging atheism results in the consideration of fairies?

Because justification wise both are equally as baseless 

Can you show atheism is true?  

Is there evidence demonstrating a god . No . Then atheism as the lack of propositional evidence of a god is true . 

"If you can't show it, it's not objective"  So then, if I can't show something is true, then I can't be objective?

See above

---

Yet we believe science tells us it is certain.

Science says the opposite. Because if science were certain it would stop

---

Confirmation bias is the impetus for scientific inquiry.

Then you don't get science . Science is designed to limit said bias as much a possible.

---

Who seeks to disprove their own theory?  What atheist here is critical of his own belief?

Anyone who is honest and wants to understand the world . Considering atheism is not a belief i can't challenge it as such.  If you mean do i consider arguments from theists for theism yup that's why i read theistic literature .

---

Either genetic mutations are random or they're mutating along a determined path (ie plan).

Either it is random or it is not.

Nope evolution is constrained by chemistry and physics and biology thus is not random . A cat will not all turn into a bird evolution will permit this . 

Something can be non random but also non planned . Non randomness has nothing to do with intents.

Oh and excepting the clear evidence for evolution is not faith .

[Agnosty]

If he were a skeptic in the greek sense he'd probably have a better grasp of the term "ad hom", lol. 

ad ho·mi·nem
adverb & adjective
1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Latin for "to the man".  As opposed to "to the argument".

I think my ironometer just broke.

Good, now you have time to brush up on logic

---

That demonstrates a narrow thinking.  How do you know challenging atheism results in the consideration of fairies?

Because atheism is nothing but a comment on whether or not I believe in fairies. 

 
So, atheism = anti-fairies?  Well, then I suppose that leaves you open to believing the universe is god, since the universe is not a fairy.

Are there not other concepts of god that you have not considered?  How can you be so sure?  How can you be sure about what you have never considered?  How can you be sure you've considered all possibilities?

"What if you don't know something?".  That's never not true, but until you make some specific proposition it's a vacuous objection. 

 
I have before, yet you persist with the "fairy" characterization.

Can you show atheism is true?  

Sure can.

Are you waiting for a formal invitation or is there another reason you haven't dispensed with it?

"If you can't show it, it's not objective"  So then, if I can't show something is true, then I can't be objective?

That's what it means for something to be objective.  If you tell me that you know that there's an imp hovering over your bedside table because you can see it...and you point to thin air...you believe that theres an imp.  This belief is neither objective, nor knowledge, and while it certainly may be true that you -see- an imp hovering over your bedside table, that's no indication that there actually is an imp hovering over your bedside table.  That your claim is true.  

That is true, but that doesn't redefine "objective" as knowing truth.  I maintain it's the opposite... in order to be objective, you cannot know truth.

Semantic games are just another diversionary tactic.

  Only when I know for sure, then I can be objective?  Seems opposite to me.

You're perfectly capable of being certain about something in the absence of any objective indication of it's truth, but what your personal certainty has to do with things that can be objectively shown to be true is a mystery.

   
That has nothing to do with the point, which is that a person who knows something to be true will not act objectively.  Whether it is actually true or not is beside the point.

That would be a failure on the part of the reader to properly ascertain what the author was trying to convey.  You cannot project your connotations onto an author and claim you're properly interpreting what is said.

It's not actually my responsibility to correct your equivocations.  I do it out of the kindness of my big mean heart, so that you stop making a fool of yourself.  Take it or leave it.

It's like you didn't even read what you quoted.. as if I asked how the weather is and you replied "banana".

[LadyForCamus]

I’m calling troll on this one.

[Cyberman]

Can you show atheism is true?

Yes.

By virtue of the fact that atheism is the response to theism, specifically theistic claims, and thus the fact that those have not met their burden of proof, atheism is proven. You want to falsify it? Pony up the evidence that substantiates theism.